Hello Stanley Wilkin ,

Don't forget eugenics, Lysenkoism, pseudo-sciences, etc. Science can also be dangerous. And don't get me started on economics with all of its externalities, i.e., things outside the scope of its models, but which are still very important, e.g., pollution, climate change, fairness (with respect to jobs, wealth, education, environment, etc.), individual happiness and freedom, criminal behavior, etc.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Religion -- for what it is understood by humans scattered worldwide -- is the most divisive force possible, followed by the colour of the skin, followed by the colour of the passport or country(ies) of residence, followed by the most dangerous animal on earth -- the collective of humans that make up a political party in any Country or across its States, followed by the syndicated mafia of inebriating or stimulating psychedelic drug peddlers and human organ bounty hunters and human sex-for-business bunty purveyors, followed by bigoted groups that interminably seek the halo of big brother supremacy through pure jungle logic of kill-or-be-killed, followed by the quest to dominate by colonization or industrialization or research, followed by entirely arbitrary and most foul partition of countries by their colonizers in the guise of granting freedom by drawing lines in sand, followed by lobbies that control guns and abortion and the destinies of countries such as NATO, followed by proxy wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan to the Middle East to Africa fought in the name of the most hollow word in literature--democracy, followed by the mindless quest for space domination to nowhere, followed by the quest for resources of the oceans and the moon or more distant cosmic structures of the solar system, followed by the unending quest for a burgeoning bottom line be it the Industry or the Insurance, followed by economic and health inequity, followed by crushing differences between the urban / rural landscape more apparent in developing countries, followed by the cultural gaps and gaps in fundamental comprehension between the self-styled elite and the urban dispossessed, followed by the divisions between the rainbow colours of LGBTQIA+ -- a religion purely celebrated through the non-cerebral reign of the groin and those that have less inclinations for such a colourful life. It all boils down to the differences between 'them' and 'us', which gaps have confined and condemned humans to an existential dustbin.

Thomas, can I suggest that ideologies were and are modelled on religions. Look for ideologies in the ancient world. The first I can find was under Xerxes, the Persian king, and a fanatical adherent of Zoroaster.

Stanley Wilkin

I entirely agree with you about your belief that religion is extremely dangerous.

However, can we think that with the decline of Christian civilization, a new culture should arise? In my new book on Understanding human life, I wrote about the epics which have founded the different religions:

“In the late nineteenth century, Nietzsche wrote in Die fröliche Wissenschaft (1882, sect. 125):

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!

One might have imagined that the decline of Judeo-Christian civilizations would foster the rise of a new epic in our world. That is certainly what Mallarmé intended with his planned Livre (Book), which he never wrote. Before Nietzsche, he had come to believe that God does not exist. As he wrote in a letter to Cazalis in 1867 (Correspondance 1854-1898, 1, 241):

After a supreme synthesis, I am slowly gaining in strength—unable, as you can see, to be distracted. But how much more unable I was, several months ago, first in my terrible struggle with that old and evil plumage—God—fortunately knocked to the ground. But as that struggle had taken place on his bony wing—which, by an agony more vigorous than I could have suspected in him, had swept me into the Shadows—I fell, victorious, madly and infinitely so [. . .]

To found this new godless civilization, glimpsed by Mallarmé and Nietzsche, a new epic was required. But neither writer was able to compose it, no doubt because of its sheer magnitude, and one hundred and fifty years later, religion still maintains a strong presence and is far from having vanished from the minds of our contemporaries.”

Is it because we live in violent societies that these monotheist religions tend to survive?

Best regards,

Daniel

No, Daniel, but your usual brilliant exposition. It is juxtaposition not created but sustained by religion which continues to encourage violence, at least intense violence. Religion survives through dichotomies. It created goodness and evil. While goodness can be found in Socrates it is a state of mind with little true particularisation.

Still the creation of fables, myths, etc without God is forever with us but the myths of religion cling on desperately to human minds, creating a deeply suspicion mode of behaving. Jesus' beggar's death created the extension of conflict into the afterlife, made death into a moral lesson.

Vinod,

Religions create or construct an ideological understanding of the world, a reality based on belief which fixes the ideology to a community and an individual. The individual and community identify together and actions and thoughts become inseparable. This is enabled by literature, most of which evolved over hundreds of years later, certainly much later than the prophet, of buildings and the actions connected to both as well as signs and symbols. These give substance to belief and stops belief fading.

These dichotomies become concrete and need to be defended. What is being defended is the reason for their existence and the nature of reality.

Stanley Wilkin

You are too pessimistic while thinking that monotheistic religions will indefinitely survive, creating goodness and evil. For me the notion of human freedom goes further than the religious concept. As Sartre said in 1946, in Existentialism is a humanism:

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism—man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. — We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”

This responsibility goes further than the old religious thinking.

Daniel, true happiness is certainly not through religion, as religious belief allows for an abnegation of responsibility. Independence from belief means relief from ideology.

I actually do not simply point to religion whereby servitude becomes acceptable human behaviour as religion is mainly a tool to ensure that servitude. But is it the rationality of the collective? Not that of the individual?

The question of whether religion is dangerous is a nuanced and debated topic. Religion, as a multifaceted aspect of human culture, can have both positive and negative effects, depending on how it is interpreted and practiced. On one hand, religion can provide individuals with a sense of community, moral guidance, and spiritual fulfillment, enhancing their well-being and fostering a strong cultural identity. On the other hand, misinterpretation or misuse of religious teachings can lead to intolerance, conflict, and even violence between different religious groups. Extremism, oppression, and closed-mindedness have also been associated with certain religious practices. The potential dangers of religion arise when beliefs are manipulated to justify discrimination, control, or harmful actions. Ultimately, the impact of religion is shaped by individual and societal choices, making it crucial to promote thoughtful dialogue, tolerance, and the responsible interpretation of religious teachings.

I want and need to add that ideology, which I detest and fear, was born from religion, at least monotheism. Believing in the single idea of a single god with precise and specific ideas. Our societies demonstrate such ideologies and the need for the these ideologies to be believed.

I have, as a genuine example, seen this in psychiatry, which I write about. Psychiatry is authoritarian run by people who individually are authoritarian and whose beliefs and understandings are provided by them and not studied genuinely by others. What a psychiatrist says is true! Not his or her truth! Psychiatrists are priests who represent a particular viewpoint and insist others accept it. Worse, like priests in many parts of the world in the present and past, have genuine power over others. Such organisations are modelled on religion!

Fascism, Communism, Putinism-all act the same or in similar fashions! Evil can easily exist if there are desires to believe, and that belief has underlying violence.

Hello Stanley Wilkin ,

Re, "Thomas, can I suggest that ideologies were and are modelled on religions. Look for ideologies in the ancient world. The first I can find was under Xerxes, the Persian king, and a fanatical adherent of Zoroaster." But which came first the ideology or the religion? And by religion, I mean organized religion. The genesis of religion is most likely in prehistory, where we have no access to it. The same thing is also true about the origins of the political organization that gave rise to Xerxes' kingdom, for example. The lord and vassal political structure, no doubt, employed religion as a justification for the position of the lord, but this approach was selfserving for both the political and religious leaders. The seven deadly sins of pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth are, by themselves, all that a lord needs by way of an ideology. Religion can, as an afterthought, be used to camouflage the seven deadly sins from the prying view of the vassals, who may themselves aspire to just these same sins.

I submit that both religion and science have the same goal: explaining the world. For those facets of the world that are regular such as the movement of the planets and the stars, both religion and science employ astronomy. The problematic features of the world are things like death, accidents, climate, weather, disease, earthquakes, predation by other groups, the economy, etc., which do not, even today, admit simple predictions, and are dealt with differently by religion and science. Religions deal with the problematic features of existence by extolling the virtues of various echelons of groveling. Science, on the other hand, offers to the confused various layers of theory, from the simple to the impenetrable, along with technological trinkets to punctuate technological progress. Not all trinkets, of course, are mere baubles, e.g., atomic weapons, but they serve to stoke the furnace of our covetousness as good as anything dreamed up by religion.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Tom Cuff

Seeing religion and science as equal but I am lost on this but they serve to stoke the furnace of our covetousness as good as anything dreamed up by religion. Science is either about explanation or about creating additional avenues of pleasure, objects to fight over. I don't actually believe the either and or but really just want a further explanation. Science is wisdom or gratification?

Your previous statement is one which concerns me and one which requires an answer. Now Xerxes was by all accounts a one off. His view on Zoroaster on monotheist was not shared by others. He attempted to destroy, some say, the polytheistic religions of Egypt and Greece, invading both partly for that purpose. This threw both cultures into confusion especially Greece. The idea of Greece as a holy land began to be referenced and the monotheistic notions of Socrates and Plato, neither fully developed, emerged.

But lets say the idea of a central, powerful god was around, evident in Judaism but not then fully developed either as Yahweh was simply the only permitted god of the Hebrews. This idea was fairly new with the Moses story a means of giving legitimacy through events in the past to Hebrew or Jewish monotheism. (Never happened-absolutely no evidence.) If monotheism came from anywhere it was Assyrian national god, which led their armies and pushed aside other gods. Therefore this represented wide cultural development of middle-east and its perimeters, taken up by fanatical mindsets like Xerxes. He is the first ruler to be fanatical, The first known person in history.

But....Political developments of vast, powerful empires that covered the known world ruled over by single kings. Gods? And a change in consciousness with the advent of power, seen as a masculine tool or entity! Individuals making momentous decisions with powerful police forces and armies. The God of hosts.

Stanley Wilkin

Before these powerful empires, what do we know about the origins of religious sentiment in archaic societies? We have gone back very far in the history of humanity—up to Mesopotamia—to find the origin of astrology and religions. But all these ancient civilizations were already States whose elaborate political and social organization could entail an obligation for their populations to observe their rules. What was the situation in earlier times, in which Boyer (2018) discerns no religious organization?

The studies of Ukrainian “Mega-Sites” dating from 4000 to 3200 B.C.E., covering 100-400 hectaresand with a population of several thousand people, show no sign of a centralized authority, of monuments or, no doubt, of an official religion (Wengrow, 2015). While hard to fully understand and transpose to today’s world, these egalitarian societies appear to tell us that political and religious powers are neither necessary nor indispensable for a human society to exist. But this is merely an assumption whose robustness we cannot verify, given the remoteness of these cultures from the present.

References:

Boyer, P. (2018). Minds make societies. New Haven and London: Yale UniversityPress.

Wengrow, D. (2015). Cities before the State in early Eurasia. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Goody lecture:

https://www.eth.mpg.de/4091237/Goody_Lecture_2015.pdf

Daniel,

I have only just become aware if the society you note in Ukraine, Typillion? But it looks like Kurgan cities not far from the site in Ukraine.

There appears an actual development towards state craft and political systems which involves identity and narrative, plus indeed competition. There nothing of top down religion in Harrapan culture.

A city can be a settlement only. Look at the Mound People in central USA. Nomadic groups coming together at certain points. The Anatolian sites from c12000 BCE were ceremonial and gathering centres, although Jericho may have had all year round residents tending the date trees.

Stanley Wilkin

The lack of written sources for archaic societies makes researchers dependent on the evidence collected on their populations by ethnologists and anthropologists over the centuries. Pierre Clastres (1974, p. 23) commented on such ethnocentrism:

A Copernican revolution is at stake, in the sense that in some respects, ethnology until now has let primitive cultures revolve around Western civilization in a centripetal motion, so to speak. (English translation by Robert Hurley)

Clastres’ premature death at age 43 prevented him from completing that revolution. He did not, in fact, examine the role of religion. Rather, he confined his investigation to the role of political power in archaic Amazonian societies, while failing to answer David Graeber’s question (2004, p. 23):

The most common criticism of Clastres is to ask how his Amazonians could really be organizing their societies against the emergence of something they have never actually experienced.

Despite this weakness, Clastres did make progress in the critique of modern anthropology.

Unfortunately, the latter is still conducted using data bases that collect observations by ethnologists and archeologists in the form of binary data files (did the society studied experience a given form of religious thought or not), such as the Standard Cross-cultural Sample developed by George Murdock and Douglas White (1969). These data are not exempt from the cultural bias singled out by Clastres, and we should be highly cautious in interpreting the findings of the studies based on them.

The study by Peoples et al. on Hunter-Gatherers and the Origin of Religion (2016) is open to such criticism. It is based on a sample of 33 hunter-gatherer societies, taken from the Standard Cross-cultural Sample. It shows that all these societies practiced animism—which the authors do not regard as a religion—but that only 15% had what they call “active high gods.” Again, given the source used, Clastres’ objections apply, and the findings are questionable.

The debate on religious sentiment in archaic societies is thus far from settled, and the ethnocentrism of our societies offers little prospect of progress.

Nevertheless, we can state that the establishment of an entity—whether celestial body, god or gene—that cannot be influenced by humans but determines their fate is an invention of complex societies endowed with a strong political authority, for the purpose of controlling their members by curtailing their freedom.

References:

Clastres, P. (1974). La Société contre l’Etat. Paris: Editions de Minuit (English translation: (1989). Society against the State. New York: Zone books).

Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Murdock, G.P., White, D.R. (1969). Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology, 9, pp.329–369.

Peoples, H.C., Duda, P., Marlowe, F.W. (2016). Hunter-gatherers and the origin of religion. Human Nature, 27 (3), pp. 261-282.

I welcome your thoughts Daniel and will throw in another from left curve (slightly).

Psychiatry and psychologists studying psychopathology picked out a particularly violent tribe in the Amazon (one of my papers deals with this) writing that this tribe was evidence of the condition in a wholesale production. They appeared to do nothing but fight and did this in a peculiarly violent fashion. Again there appears to be an absence of religion or obvious religion. Reams have been written about them by psychologists and criminologists.

I looked at them from a different level. One, they seemed to have begun this activity when Portuguese came into the area, employing them as mercenaries. So violence was connected to prosperity. Psychiatrists are not historians and tend to be indifferent to the past explaining the present as such behavioural changes are found in the brain or mind. They were also not violent to their kith and kin but practised a caring society towards the 'weak' and children adopted from beaten tribes. Change within ancient or primitive societies are the subject of wider changes. Morality, as we understand it, was not evident as either their morality did not conform to the Christian Portuguese or the contradictions in the invader's morality of killing being rewarded by a group which talked of peace. Or they had a morality based on internal and external societal mores as most societies have even in complex ones where it is covered up more adeptly.

Hello Stanley Wilkin ,

Re "Seeing religion and science as equal but I am lost on this but they serve to stoke the furnace of our covetousness as good as anything dreamed up by religion. Science is either about explanation or about creating additional avenues of pleasure, objects to fight over. I don't actually believe the either and or but really just want a further explanation. Science is wisdom or gratification?" Take the recent race by the Russian Federation and India to land on the south pole of the Moon. One can, of course, classify this contest as a mere seeking of knowledge (presence of water), and/or a gratification of the nationalistic ambitions of two political entities. But one must not be blind to the strategic importance of water on the Moon for establishing bases (commercial/military) there. But, in general, the goal of physical and biological sciences has always been to bring new devices, processes, ideas, etc. to the market place. Josiah Wedgewood (1730-1795) sought reliable ways to measure high temperatures, and his son Thomas extended this research to the subject of blackbody radiation, but Wedgewood, the elder's, main motivation was to make fine porcelain and sell it under his trademarked name "Queen's Ware". The Davisson-Germer experiment (circa 1927) demonstrated the existence of matter waves, first proposed by Prince Louis-Victor de Broglie. But do not forget the only reason they had the experimental setup was to study the phenomenon of secondary electron emission as it affected electron vacuum tubes used in the repeaters (amplifiers) employed in long distance telephony by their employer the Bell Telephone Company. Even Davisson's Nobel prize was related to corporate gratification, and today there is still intense lobbying for Nobel prizes for organizational and corporate gratification. Accolade gratification was so intense that the experimental physicist Emil Rupp stooped to fraud to get and keep recognition.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

I would add to the above that religion, those more than offshoots of ancestor worship, although these play a part for after all what else really are Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, are social (of course) and political developments.

The Sumerians may have had temples first, priests before kings, but although there are signs of offerings, etc, it seems to me wrong to believe they worshiped at an early stage the same god or gods in the same way as say 500 years later when classes had formed and kingship developed. The concept of city populations as sheep with shepherds developed early, so it may have been a kind of welfare society, keeping everyone fit and happy for the benefit of the many.

At the Anatolia celebration sites from 12000 to 10000 ideologies seemed to have formed of humankinds superiority to and dominance of animals, not seen in early cave paintings where often humankind makes no appearance at all.

Colonising aspects of Monotheistic religions need to be taken into account, to have millions thinking and acting the same. One city under monotheistic embrace can look like another.

Contrary to claims, the colonising effects of monotheistic religions are achieved by war or violence. Africa is a good example of this with both Islam and Christianity establishing control through the use of arms and/or enslaving the population.

Thomas Cuff,

Do you not see this as fitting into a specific view of science, to create personal and social aspects of gratification? Entrepreneurial relief? Scientific triumphalism! But there are sciences that simply do not work or work to an extent but really serve to impress a professional group's status.

Science, I suggest, functions in different ways aside from the breakdown of science into different areas of research and the identity of that research. Assuming the validity of 'science' on all occasions isn't wise. Science can serve a group, an ideology or political position as much as any other field of study.

I have been watching a number of old religious debates on You Tube, usually including the long dead Christopher Hitchens, and many debates involve the problem of 'how does a good god square with evil things?': people and natural forces. A great waste of time and energy as one, many stories in religious books do not demonstrate a 'good and caring god' and two, this problem only involves monotheisms as in the polytheistic world there would be, and usually is, a god of war as well as one of love and peace. Attempts to make Yahweh and Allah, both war gods surely anyway, inhabit both attitudes can never succeed and efforts in that direction produce merely contradiction.

Still, we are more sophisticated now anyway and recognition of bad actions by good people or actors, those who do not set out to harm others, and the recognition of bad people or bad actors like Putin while evident is not universal.

It really depends on what religion you are looking at. I am a Christian and believe in forgiveness and trying to live a life in which you don't do harm or negative things to people.

But some religions - mentioning no names - seem not to follow such an ethical code.

Mary,

Ethical codes were not invented by religions but, from my reading, Ancient Egyptian courtiers, and Jesus' s rendition is much the same as others. But I think you are referencing Islam. But what do Muslims say? I'd genuinely like to know.

Religion is as dangerous as science when it serves the establishment and the corporate elite; when technology is primed for cybernetic totalitarian world order! Only a Federation of democratic rights for Republics interests can defeat the mouldy science of its logic!

Religions make a great impact on human culture and history. In Taiwan, Buddihists tend to practice charity to serve the need of the poor, facilitating eductation and social welfare. As a Christian, I enjoy the reality of God as love and light, also enjoying the sense of community in local churches. As for bad relgions, for example, some temples of Toaism in Taiwan have been related to adultery and monetary scams. In this regard, it is really dangerous.

Yes. Remember, religion is man's outward appearance to man that he has a relationship with a god. Faith is man's inward appearance to a god that he has a relationship with a god. The spirit of man whether Holy or unholy will show man's faith and the religion. Religion maybe god inspired in man but it becomes manipulation by man.

Therefore, religion becomes dangerous because man can become dangerous to himself, to family, to society, and to the world.

Dear Stanley Wilkin

Thank you for your response. I was going to delete my answer but as you have responded to it, I won't. But I'd rather not implicate any religions as they will all hold importance to those who live by them.

Maybe the term 'ethical codes' was not the correct one, I agree.

Prof Dr Paul Kuei-chi Tseng, who is also a Christian, has submitted a very good response, above.

Mary and Paul, most institutions provide charity, even extreme terrorist forms of Islam and I suspect other groups such as the mafia, so that is not an indicator. While not all ancient societies practised charity many did and there is no reason to believe that charity has any specific connection to religion.

Ernest, I suggest it would be very difficult to prove the originality of god separate from the devices of its followers. While simple arguments are normally used, the birth of Mary's god is a complex to and fro of other deities. I. A. Richards for example wrote a provocative examination of JOB, beginning by noting the minds that wrote it were very different to his, indicating a logical variance between them and us. The meaning of Job was originally very different to the meaning we have taken out of it. More than one culture was involved in the story's construction and meaning and different religions or religious aspects.

Exactly the same confronts the reader of the Creation story whereby the meaning would have directed the original listener or reader to entirely different understandings. Deconstructed its meaning for the present is different than its meaning for the past.

That is to establish virtues,such as honesty,sincerity,sympathy,leniency, tolerance,humane,forgiveness, hard working,courage,and

service to God and to mankind .

Usman, these are character traits.

Is there anything else? Where is it in the Qur'an? Many if not most religions contain additional literature which explores additional issues such as ethics. Often they contradict the source book. Jewish literature concerns the establishing of Jewish identity and therefore contains much violence while one of its initial commandments is 'do not kill'.

In my experience the ethical instructions tend to be culturally based.

Thanks very much anyway!

Can be. Depends on the religion, and the 'sub-religion'. Mainstream Jainism, for example, tends to be very peaceful and compassionate. A certain 'religion of peace', not so much.

Can be. Depends on how the believer realizes the essence of the religion. Oxthdox Christianity, for exmaple tends to be peaceful and compassionate, too. It all depends on a believer's attitude--for truth or anything not pure.

Zoncita, while that is true it exists therefore in the same fashion as patriotism and nationalism, as a means towards war or some kind of collective action. For me, thereby it operates in the same intellectual space concerning human existence and its nature but not providing any greater insights. It is thereby a kind of group narcissism constructing the extraordinary nature, its exceptionality, of that group.

If you consider my short piece on monotheisms and their colonialist tendencies, each of the monotheisms believes that, or have believed, they have the right to take over and control people's souls-whether they agree to it or not. This has died out in the West except for the USA, because of secularism. Some monotheisms believe that people should allow themselves to be colonised or die.

Not nice!

Years ago I was friendly with a devout Christian, who although I explained constantly my dislike of religion, made every attempt to convert me. His knowledge of his religion was far inferior to mine. He held steadfastly to everything the Bible said and denied my historical view which opposed his unthinking one. The untroubled viewpoint is not remotely interesting.

Several years after I began to advise Muslim run colleges on how to deliver courses and construct them and of course I was constantly beaten about the head with Islam. This despite my saying that I was not interested in any religion. Although they wanted me to respect their viewpoint, which I did, they refused to respect mine.

Both succeeded only in convincing me of the complete lack of relevance of both religions!

Hi Stanley,

I think you are missing how dangerous lack of religion can be.

Karl

Karl Sipfle,

A religious viewpoint surely? Secular societies are far better than religious ones. There is no genuine comparison. Religious societies believe they are perfect or, at least, better, but in fact are mean and nasty. There are immense problems with the religious viewpoint and ideas. In religious societies these are ignored. The attitudes towards women and sexuality are disgraceful, and although in Western societies religions act better it is because secular ideas dominate.

Religions are subject to change-Christianity, for example, started off as pacifist. But changes are not thought through. Augustine's ideas on 'defensive wars' were picked up by Christian authorities and implemented through the imposition of Popes and cardinals, or, at least, without their querying. When Christianity became a wielder of power, its ethical relevance ceased.

In mixed classes, Muslims would state straight faced that Islam is the religion of peace, and I then had to control the laughter that emanated from my non-Muslim students.

The recent declarations of the Pope praising Russian imperialism brings up the initial problem with fascism. Initially it was a position of far right Catholicism. It emerged from the Vatican itself. The Pope's statements are far right and are a return to Papacy central political beliefs. The Pope and Catholic Church in the 1930s and 40s had concordats with all the fascist political institutions and with Hitler.

For the pure faith, believers still need to return to the Scripture and Experience of Holy Spirit insead of following any religious leaders, who tend to mislead their followers by their charisma.

Paul, I read these books but I can find nothing in them. No, I do not believe in the Holy Spirit as simply it makes no sense except providing an additional aspect of God. A recreation of Sophia, wisdom. Here I have sympathy with Islam which believes in one god, and that god is indivisible. Problem again: the Islamic heaven is full. Allah lives surrounded by supernatural beings. He rides into battle with an immense number of angels, fighting invisibly. Really, this is all very old world. Very Sumerian religion rather than Greek.

Still, my observation of the Pope, clearly fascist to the core, allows for basic religious claims to easily fall by the wayside. Talking to Russian students the Pope praised Russian imperialism, Peter the Great, Catharine the Great, all those who extended the Russian Empire. Thousands upon thousands of Poles, Tartars, Ukrainians were annihilated to create their empire and thousands are dying still to recreate it. He praised it all. Every murdering Tsar and Tsarina.

Dear Stanley, I fully respect your view, for indeed faith is very personal.

According to the CANI's WORLDVIEW IMPERATIVE, delusions themselves, including those of a religious nature, have no influence on reality. So they cannot be injurious to the public, provided that the recognition of a given religion as the true idea is an individual matter, not a public matter and that someone’s religious beliefs don’t lead to indoctrination, dominance, and subordination of people with opposite views.

The CANI's Theorem (CANI's Worldview Imperative) based on the statement: GOD EXISTS FOR BELIEVERS AND DOESN’T EXIST FOR NON-BELIEVERS, has been derived from the CANI's Imperative of Independent Beings (CANI's Principle of Coexistence of Independent Beings), and however seemingly contradictory, is in line with the Aristotle's Principle of Non-contradiction.

We should keep in mind, that THE ESSENCE OF THE CONFLICT OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION IS NOT DUE TO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO SIGNIFICANTLY DISTINCT MAGISTERIA OF KNOWLEDGE, AS GOULD TRIED PERSISTENTLY TO CONVINCE OTHERS OF HIS VIEW, BUT IMPROPER FUNCTIONING RELIGION, ITS ROLE AND POSITION IN A SOCIETY.

Unfortunately, religion has so far been shown to be hazardous, harmful, and often deadly for humans. Religions, particularly organized religions, including Christianity and Islam, directly or indirectly are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Religion drives apart people of opposite views, inspires mutual loathing and hatred, and is regarded as a threat to human rights. In such a situation:

CAN RELIGION BE CONSIDERED NOT DANGEROUS AND HUMAN-FRIENDLY?

****************

MORE ON THIS SUBJECT ON:

>Harmful Effects of Religion. Time for change!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eLPocY6JwI

which is a part of the online lecture:

> D.E.S. DEMOCRACY WITHOUT POLITICIANS – WHY NOT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCnI9X3aXZ0&t=2927s

Paul, I respect your faith but faith itself, which is important to many people, is different from ideology. The fact that I do not understand why anyone would believe as a result of what is only literature accompanied by tall stories in gods is my quarrel with human limitations and little more.

Stanley, I know that you are a scholar of great knowledge and keen observation of the world. Hopefully, you can gain the truth via your academic method, finding a satisfatory answer.

Paul, thanks.

I would not attempt to collapse your beliefs but honestly I do not need any. I believe religion concerns human needs and some require internal factors to be external to them. I do believe that literature, human creativity, has been mistaken fir other celestial creativity.

Searching through ancient Sumerian history I noted how this ancient, long gone civilisation constructed stories around often basic heavenly figures. Natural forces like winds or storms. its writers created purpose for these otherwise one dimensional creatures or rather inventions. Interactions amongst themselves which created actuality. Doing so enabled them to search for purpose better, building up a three dimensional reality out of the imagination, and using these as a tool for deeper understanding. Plays were constructed to entertain and educate the elite. The Sumerian scribes created the world stories, and the world's gods. In their writings are Adam and Eve, the flood, every story in all three monotheisms, as well as the fundamentals of created a relationship between heavenly beings and humankind.

Literature or creativity provides a means for us to build and manage structure in the fleeting world around us.

Stanley Wilkin Dear Stanley, with all due respect, I think that making a statement in universal terms, declaring how extremely dangerous religion is, seems not entirely fair to me. Religion, said in a universal way, has dangerous aspects, but also fraternal and beneficial aspects for humanity. Christian monotheism, positively valued by John Stuart Mill in his work Utilitarianism, implies the existence of values such as wishing anyone everything good that we want for each of us. Values such as otherness, generosity, commitment to the truth, among many others, have been a distinctive sign of Christianity, and help to build a more humane ethic. Along with this, it is true that religion is disfigured when, on many occasions, politics interferes and politicians try to justify actions using religion in an erroneous and rude way. It is regrettable what is intended in the Russian Orthodox Church with the figure of Stalin, or in the case of Iran, of course, but these are particular cases, which should not make us lose sight of the fact that the essence of religion is promoting people's happiness. That is why it seems appropriate to remember Stuart Mill when he claimed to recover the statements of Jesus Christ about not wanting to do to others what you do not want for yourself.

Juan, religion, essentially monotheisms, engage with certain viewpoints that by themselves create unhealthy conditions. Are dichotomies really useful? Are they not simplistic?

Good and bad? Such approaches lead to conceptual rigidity. Authoritarianism- a direct consequence certainly of monotheistic religion. This approach has harmed and continually harms the development of human societies allowing for the construction of belief rather than creating critical faculties. Faith? Faith in Putin and Hitler, surely? The degradation of individualism. Belief? If we believe that something has occurred or a process is valuable rather than test it out we are damaging ourselves and those around us. Actions based on behaviour, if innocent behaviour, which tend to inhibit female behaviour diminishes our societies and encourages patriarchies from where violence issues. Do monotheisms extend violence, against what you claim-it must do because of the effect on our perceptions whereby problems are seen within dichotomies and through ideas of force. Monotheisms grew with war and the development of elite power groups!

since this matter has been brought up the matter of monotheist societies and ethics====the Christians in Roman society formed The Way, which some said was created by Jesus but which appeared a hundred years later. Christianity was a kind of closed and open society with behaviours sufficiently different from those around. It functioned like a secret society with admittance based on changes in behaviour but also benefitting from the society, help in bad times, help with money, in a form learnt from roman patronage. You looked after your neighbour. Charity may have helped those both in and outside the society its aim was to acquire recruits.

Christian ethics are ultimately pragmatic self-help.

exorcism was part of the entrance for new Christian recruits.

It was similar to other cults like Mithras and Isis.

Sent to me:

Dear Stanley Wilkin, regarding one of your questions, please take a look at SN Soc Sci 2, 66 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00350-7 and share. Thank you! Enno Winkler

If the most violent societies are the most religious, then it should be said that religion has taken over the whole world!!? As far as history shows, God's prophets like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all evangelizers of kindness and peace.

Mohammad,

Why do you believe they were 'evangelisers of kindness and peace'? That is the most important part of your response. Why, when the literature determines the opposite? Moses led a group of Hebrews into the 'holy land', a territory their war god decreed he had given to them, engaging in the first narrated acts of genocide. I found and find the Qur'an an extremely violent book with several episodes of Allah leading 'armies of angels' against designated enemies, people who refuse to do what he tells them to do. Obedience or death rather than peace, surely? Plenty of extreme violence here!

Questions are raised about Jesus' message of peace, nominally assumed.

If you ask me I would like to say that when we follow the rules and rutuals of any religion, without thinking logically then its become dangerous.

Rishika,

But if the religious tomes consulted clearly enforce killing, where would people go wrong? Those brought up as monotheists have plenty of examples of routine murder to go by, so 'thinking logically' leads surely to killing logically?

Religion has the same potential to abuse as any other human system be it political, scientific or legal

yes, I agree with Stuart. Relgions can be abused to do damage to human minds or well-being, especially when the relgious leaders are too ambitious or aggressive.

Stuart and Paul agreed but this is only one element of religion. The seeming fascism of the present pope is not unusual but the unwillingness to confront that fascism is not either, nor the imagining that religion makes people different, more ethical, better. It simply makes people identify morality not act ethically.

Progress on an understanding of religion is that it should be accepted that it can be evil, often when it is claiming to be good. When it claims belief is good for you, that's when it is most evil.

yes, but we should keep everything in perspective. The pros and cons of religions should be fairly weighed in order that we get a balanced view.

Paul, no. Here you are wrong. When anyone employs balance they mean 'I don't want to discuss this or have it discussed.' I nevertheless think it must be discussed in order to understand it better. Noting the evil of religion does not mean is doesn't possess good.

Paul, thought I'd add this before bed.

The story of Moses is a nationalistic parable about conquest and genocide that has done terrible harm to people's thoughts and actions, not necessarily on the surface but underneath. It promotes violence. It also promotes a number of very negative attitudes and behaviours. We should accept that and excise it instead of filming it and applauding it. It is about identity through destroying others.

No, absolutely no. Misunderstanding real mission of holy religions and shedding innocent blood under the title struggle against evil and false understanding of the real noble morals and behaviors the holy religions call for, all these deteriorate the world we live in.

So not holy religion is serious but poisoning thoughts are the serious.

If we follow what God wants us to do, we all will live in peace and welfare and the life will be as we are living in Eden.

Sundus, please follow what god wants you to do but if it includes murder and genocide then please keep your distance from me. In most religions that tends to be a requirement at some point.

Why single out religion as being dangerous? Earthquakes are dangerous. War is dangerous. Political ideologies, imperialism, atomic weapons, cyber hackers ... the list of dangerous phenomena goes on.

As to "The most violent societies tend to be the most religious" I assume you refer to the long history of religious inquisition and war, which certainly ARE a blight on religion when misused. But the greater quantum of murderous regimes in terms of body count must be last century's communist, and usually atheistic, regimes and of course Nazism. The root cause seems to be human nature rather than religion.

As the left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing, the positive achievements of Christianity in education and poverty alleviation are often ignored in these kinds of anti-religion discussions.

Preprint The improbability of atheism: How the consequences of being ...

We keep it in perspective in this volatile global community. Everything is possible if there is is no final judgement.

Christopher,

Achievements on developing welfare can be found in differing forms from the Sumerians onwards. In fact the Sumerian codes, its care for its citizens, was immensely effective. The Moses codes by comparison are crude and clearly reflect the ancient middling classes.

This idea of religion inventing human welfare is a regular misnomer and I tend to suggest to its declaimers-Prove it.

You will indeed struggle to do so, at least prove the notion came from Christianity for example or that its impetus did not have other causes found in pagan societies within the area.

So, Christopher, please prove it.

Christopher C. Kelly

This claim that monotheisms invented welfare and care should be finally put to bed. The claim is constantly made but it has no basis. The Isis and Isis and Seraphis cult in Rome and Syria (coincidentally not far from where Jesus taught and travelled through) had hospitals long before the appearance of Christianity. Greek philosophers discussed the problem of the under class and slavery.

Christianity and Islam say nothing against slavery. But also neither say anything against genocide, a powerful part of the Moses story and which makes an appearance in the Qur'an as the price of disobeying god. Mass killings play an important role in both religions.

While pagan religions present a view of what gods are, monotheisms produce concepts, which I see as false, of what human beings are. This can be in direct relation to the god, i.e. human beings are obedient, never challenging, traits that can be utilised in authoritarian states. As all people follow the same god and express the same values individuality can be limited as are actions. Certain traits, and only certain ones, are required and other traits can be suppressed.

Knowledge connected to belief soon becomes knowledge of belief but not knowledge of itself.

To what extent does monotheism construct reality and our thinking. That what we believe to be empirical is merely the effects of religion over centuries on our understanding. Medical provides one point of possible obfuscation rather than awareness. I choose this as this is one of my research areas. Medical as both a professional and scientific understanding presents its credentials in certain ways. It consists for example of identification, reception and then processing. This is done through processes of authoritative identification and obedience (which usually means giving up autonomy) by others constructed through superiority in knowledge and often intellect. These have power. Now the knowledge may be just part of their functions, as described above, and not separate from them. Our belief is required to accept the processes provided.

Worth noting, as I have done previously, hospitals look like temples or places of worship. Doctors designated and differentiated as priests and many of the processes they engage in part of their own processes. Isis, in which some of the first hospitals occurred, were done through processes of worship, that is the god is identified and inwardly worshipped, but the healing was the patients acceptance of the 'holy' environment they found themselves in. Substances employed as methods of healing were symbolic rather than otherwise justified, the incense to clean the air of humours otherwise modern drugs inserted within the body rather than working outside the body, cleaning humours within.

Think of other examples where authority and the ideas gleaned from authoritative sources are assumed to be correct as they form a process of acceptance we would otherwise ignore, but, and this is essential, within mass acceptance.

Stanley Wilkin , You asked me to prove Christianity invented charity. Yet I did not make that claim. You constructed a straw man and argued against that, rather than against what I said.

Do I now respond to a tedious monologue? Here is a brief response to your objection:

• Christianity's contribution to human welfare is well documented. The Red Cross being one of countless Christian charities and myriad others undocumented.
• Slavery has been an unfortunate feature of human hierarchies since civilization's inception. The Bible is not to blame for that. William Wilberforce, a committed Christian politician, was instrumental in its removal in modern time, although we know slavery still exists in at least some non-Christian countries.
• The contribution of motivated Christian academics to scientific development include Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Napier, Faraday, Maxwell ... the list goes on.

Christianity's positive contribution to human development is contrary to your premise that religion is "dangerous". Human history without the influences of Judaism and Christianity would be an interesting thought experiment.

Therefore your premise that religion is "dangerous" is unresearched. You would have been more accurate to point out religion has the potential to be dangerous. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas and the like have demonstrated their danger to society. They seem to share a similar theological basis, as pointed out by Christopher Hitchens, which probably deserves further research.

Christopher C Kelly

Well I do feel certainly that religion has the potential to be dangerous, even when it is at its best. I wonder why you believe my ideas are unresearched when i have written a great deal on it and have attempted to demonstrate its positive side but unfortunately i think my argument was about origins. (I reread your piece and realised you may not have actually have said that but I decided to keep it in). By unresearched of course you mean you do not agree with me, as I probably do not agree with you.

I found an old paper of mine on the ISIS cult in Syria and Rome (between 100 BC and 300 CE) and how much of its claims, its ideas and narratives were like the Christian ones, even though ISIS came first. It is of course possible that late borrowing occurred. But...Christianity invented nothing, probably not even Christianity. Most of its so-called advances were already in the society of the time.

While I do think Christianity contributed positively it was in line with secularism and the mistake Christians make that the positive liberal traits of their religion were down to them rather than the appearance of the latter. Down to Greek philosophy and the philosophers in Egypt of the Jewish diaspora before Jesus began his mission. At the time of Sophocles several mainly forgotten Greek philosophers were preaching tolerance and understanding (although Sophocles did not). It was a Christian in the 5th century who invented defensive warfare, although yes Christians had agreed with pacifism. Another in the 2nd century in North Africa who insisted that women should be always veiled. But, no, you are certainly right about many positive aspects of Christianity but they did not last long and did not solely belong to Christianity. Later writers claimed it did. I strongly doubt that Christianity when it first arrived was as you imagine it to have been.

Christopher, go back: Christianity did not invent hospitals, welfare and care. The first claim on this was the ISIS cult. They preceded Christianity by a hundred to two hundred years.

Athenian philosophers had already questioned slavery by 300 BCE so why did not Christianity? It seems I have to keep repeating myself.

It is highly likely that Christianity was about the end of the world, miracles and exorcism. The latter was illegal in Jewish society and explains one reason why Jesus met an untimely end. When Jesus spoke of LOVE he meant to and within the community he was forming, not universal love! I assume you know The Way? There were other messiahs around at the same time as Jesus and his ethical sayings (not the parables, common in Jewish life and society) other religious thinkers in Alexandria at the time were working these things out, and these were probably included in the Jesus stories at a later point.

In agree with Stanley Wilkin who recommends going back further in history. Indeed, there have been many wise thinkers striving for the good throughout the ages. I agree with him also that violence and religion should not be integral to religion.

On this, I urge Mr Wilkin to look 'deeper' (much deeper than the level of "literal' interpretations) to the fundamental principles that inform all sacred traditional texts.

I support S. J. Malik who highlights the importance of interpretation (hopefully based upon the above principles) and the potential to distort the meaning in order to serve powerful ideals.

And so, I urge Mr Wilkin to read further and deeper on these matters.

Ann Van Ryn

I completely agree with Prof. Dr. Zoncita Del Mundo Norman

Religion seeks to find morals to guarantee survival of the believers. Survival in the human world which has NOT found nature's way seeks the better way by violence - war. Hence, religion is dangerous to those who want to subvert nature's way which is everyone. But humanity has made some progress, organizations of cooperative people have become larger. The next step must be to form a world order that can foster competition without war.

Religion is holy till it is practised with holistic viewpoints but if religion is followed with ulterior motives of pelf,power and egosatisfaction, it becomes hazardous for humanity and future.

Ann Van Ryn

I think by deeper you mean accepting the (sic) spiritual\etc aspects which I place great doubt on. The ideas that are extrapolated from the monotheistic books. But the problem there is that if you take any written work ideas, seemingly profound, can be seen and expanded on. Ideas can be easily taken from any narrative and made into greater ideas of seeming great profundity. I can show you, if you have time. I passed kind words with an individual who explained to me all he had understood from a specific holy book, but in truth most of it was projection and based on the commentaries that expanded on the work. I could expand on other ideas from the same book of a more hoary nature. Reading books that express ideas from other areas is far more rewarding as the solution, God, is not known, does not embrace violence and encourage all kinds of strange behaviours. These tend to be forgotten as assumptions of miraculous thinking wrongly dominate.

Not quite Mr Wilkin, by 'deeper' I allude to 4 levels of reading/interpretation i.e. literal, allegorical, analogical and metaphysical all of which offer a level of meaning and insight into the richness of sacred texts. In this context, the myths and parabols etc that you question might be understood accordingly.

AVR

Ann Van Ryn,

Thanks but please do not assume I do not know these things and in fact if you blunder through my writings on here and elsewhere you'll find that I do. Now while these represent cultural understanding they also tend to be peculiar to the middle east. Much of the bible, its narratives at least, can be found in Sumerian and Persian literature. As literature, I adore Gilgamesh. Much of the biblical narratives are or were influenced by Ancient Greece suggesting a creative period corresponding to the time of Hellenistic Greece and not earlier.

Where Judaism is concerned, I believe that they were more recent constructions, c 300 BCE, but many do reflect the Assyrian, Babylonian period when Israel/Judah was reduced to a rump of 50,000 population. These or the survivors living in Iraq and Persia constructed stories of Yahweh believer's immense importance as their states became small. Therefore they were god's chosen (previously to the political disasters they revered several gods), Moses and Aaron led the conquest of the Near East, etc, etc. Making up stories when cultural groups fail is commonplace.

What is that lovely song: 'It ain't necessarily so....'

Ann Van Ryn

When I wrote peculiar to the middle east I needed to add these stories (let's remember Samuel, a cynical server of Yahweh who ordered the genocide of neighbouring peoples, a kind of Putin so not much morality there, and condemned Saul for his refusal-an ethical stance-putting in his place the compliant immoral David), are good and well written, and drowned out other cultural myths. By doing this, they created a sense of truth, even if only historical truth.

Yes Mr Wilkin, war has raged throughout the ages, unimaginable suffering. However your original question: 'Is religion dangerous' must be explored far beyond historical facts or literal interpretations, dangerously extrapolated from the texts and used to influence the uninformed.

I see Mr Wilkin that you are not familiar with, nor are open to learning the meaning revealed in cultural myths and most possibly symbolism either. These are not just 'made up' 'ideas'. As I mentioned earlier, they stand to reveal the first principles that inform all orthodox religions.

Ann Van Ryn

Ann Van Ryn,

I am fully aware of cultural myths, etc, and have written about these issues, and some of these papers are on here. Egyptian myths are rewarding in this matter, and Egyptian society which presents for me a different way of thinking while being the source of many Greek myths and ideas. Obviously Sumerian culture, presenting many ideas which have come down to us. I have a much thumbed copy of Gilgamesh although I know many of the other stories by heart especially those on Inanna. In these works of course are many of the stories in monotheisms including the Qur'an. I traced a story in the latter to Egypt under the Greeks and what it represented in different religions. Part of my training in psychology and psychotherapy involved passing a long course on Jung, but my interest in these matters goes back a very long way.

Present societies can be seen in the Sumerian culture.

But one of the many dangers of the monotheistic religions lie in their construction of false realities and their consequent denial of those realities. The shifting around because of their belief in a god whose truths constantly shift. The claim for profundities and the complete absence of profundities. There is for example much wisdom in Egyptian secular literature. much of it stolen from Judaism and Christianity. Including the Golden Rule.

'Truths' .... relative or Universal? Arbitrary or Eternal?

Perhaps we'll leave it there Mr Wilkin, thank you for your time.

Ann Van Ryn

Ann Van Ryn,

If you want to reopen it let me know. I think the truths you understand are not the ones I understand, but I'm open to all thinking. I just don't agree necessarily with all thinking.

Ann (last time)

I was given a book by a friend to read, The Secret History of the World, which covered these areas but unfortunately there was little genuine history in it.

Religion and politics must be separated from global administrations. Religions and politics are corrupted when they are ruled by psychopaths, and these psychopaths have ruled human societies throughout human history. Scientifically, their percentage reaches 3% among humans. They rule everywhere, and in return humanity must revolutionize them, a global human revolution led by philosophers, academics, and intellectuals. To achieve this, we must rely on humanistic academic philosophers to change the global system, and I summarized this system in a novel

No, No, No

If a human understands the real mission of holy religion and not be racial and understand that religion guides to mercy, to real means of help, to educate oneself, to seek to equality with others, to be benevolent, and to spread good ethics and morals.

So, holy religion builds and constructs good nations and not dangerous.

All holy religions say first judge on Day Judgement is shedding innocent blood and also doing harm to others. Holy religions tell us who do humanity deeds will win Eden and who is sinner will be in hell.

So, true understanding of holy religion diminish and vanish all evil present in our world.

Sundus,

Quite where 'racial' comes into this is lost on me as all modern religions come from elsewhere. The factors you describe of benevolence and goodness can be found everywhere and are not backed up by religion, but authoritarianism is for example. Hamas and Hezbollah are funded by a theocracy, so where is the goodness you write of there, and racism in the Deep South in America is encouraged by churches, or has been. Although religion, that is Islam, Christianity, never concerned themselves with the morality of slavery and the first monotheism concerned itself with genocide, placing the first description before us, and is probably still focused on removal of peoples from land and their own occupation by right of an ancient barbaric script, I suggest that your rendition of religion's qualities is what you have been told and not what is in the books. How many instances of conquest are in the Qur'an? Are not both Christianity and Islam colonising?

Mirzakhmet,

Yes religion is part of deep study but I am not clear what your claims further than that are. The book religions are worthy of study within aspects of history and cultural development, or as ancient fantasy, but not enough has been done in both of these as to the harm they've caused socially and culturally. The civilisations in Africa and Asia destroyed through their impress.

Saadaddin Ahmed

I am not as certain as you are about the existence of psychopathology and its undue effect on societies as this seems like a means of removing others from wrong doing and thereby has more to do with demonology. Just another psychiatric myth taken up by the general public. It raises though the question of this aspect, if it is or were true, amongst the prophets, many of which fit the description, and thereby the true nature of holy writ.